Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

KEP-3022: graduate Pod Topology Spread MinDomains to stable #4407

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 7, 2024
Merged

KEP-3022: graduate Pod Topology Spread MinDomains to stable #4407

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3025bc9
KEP-3022: graduate Pod Topology Spread MinDomains to stable
sanposhiho Jan 15, 2024
cd58b39
fix: update based on the reviews
sanposhiho Jan 28, 2024
2df15e4
update lint in integration tests
sanposhiho Jan 28, 2024
e8be17a
update toc
sanposhiho Jan 28, 2024
ca70daf
address the review
sanposhiho Feb 4, 2024
5fd5087
fix based on the review
sanposhiho Feb 6, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion keps/prod-readiness/sig-scheduling/3022.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -5,4 +5,6 @@ kep-number: 3022
alpha:
approver: "@wojtek-t"
beta:
approver: "@johnbelamaric"
approver: "@johnbelamaric"
stable:
approver: "@wojtek-t"
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@wojtek-t Hi, I just assigned it to you, but please give it to another person if needed.

66 changes: 44 additions & 22 deletions keps/sig-scheduling/3022-min-domains-in-pod-topology-spread/README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
- [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
- [Alpha (v1.24):](#alpha-v124)
- [Beta (v1.25):](#beta-v125)
- [GA (v1.30):](#ga-v130)
- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
- [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
- [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
Expand All @@ -38,20 +39,20 @@

Items marked with (R) are required _prior to targeting to a milestone / release_.

- [ ] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
- [ ] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
- [ ] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
- [ ] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors)
- [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints)
- [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests for meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
- [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free
- [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
- [ ] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
- [ ] (R) Production readiness review completed
- [ ] (R) Production readiness review approved
- [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
- [x] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
- [x] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
- [x] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
- [x] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors)
- [x] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints)
- [x] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests for meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
- [x] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free
- [x] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
- [x] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
- [x] (R) Production readiness review completed
- [x] (R) Production readiness review approved
- [x] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
- [x] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
- [x] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes

[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -237,9 +238,9 @@ This can inform certain test coverage improvements that we want to do before
extending the production code to implement this enhancement.
-->

- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/scheduler/framework/plugins/podtopologyspread`: `2022-06-17` - `86%`
- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/api/pod`: `2022-06-17` - `66.7%`
- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/apis/core/validation`: `2022-06-17` - `82.1%`
- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/scheduler/framework/plugins/podtopologyspread`: `2024-01-28` - `87.3%`
- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/api/pod`: `2024-01-28` - `74.8%`
- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/apis/core/validation`: `2024-01-28` - `83.9%`

##### Integration tests

Expand All @@ -250,7 +251,7 @@ For Beta and GA, add links to added tests together with links to k8s-triage for
https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html
-->

test: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/19c8a2127177b43effb9bfe1de272d6f08ea56e8/test/integration/scheduler/filters/filters_test.go#L1060
test: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/c6064489223862fe1888fcbe0656ab1087461adb/test/integration/scheduler/filters/filters_test.go#L1349
k8s-triage: https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html?sig=scheduling&test=TestPodTopologySpreadFilter

##### e2e tests
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -280,7 +281,11 @@ So, E2E tests doesn't add extra value to integration tests.

#### Beta (v1.25):

- [ ] This feature will be enabled by default as a Beta feature in v1.25.
- [x] This feature will be enabled by default as a Beta feature in v1.25.

#### GA (v1.30):

- [x] No particular issue is reported to this feature for a certain length of time.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can't comment on unchanged lines, so commenting here:

  1. "Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?"

Please fill in. In particular, this comment from the KEP template is relevant:

Additionally, for features that are introducing a new API field, unit tests that
are exercising the `switch` of feature gate itself (what happens if I disable a
feature gate after having objects written with the new field) are also critical.
You can take a look at one potential example of such test in:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/97058/files#diff-7826f7adbc1996a05ab52e3f5f02429e94b68ce6bce0dc534d1be636154fded3R246-R282

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, we missed such test and we only did the manual testing for switching the feature gate.
I created the PR to add the integration test in kubernetes/kubernetes#123115. However if we will remove the feature gate when reaching GA, the PR is no longer needed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please update with the text like this then [agree it's too late now...]

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@wojtek-t Fixed 🙏


## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -481,9 +486,9 @@ Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., co
implementation difficulties, etc.).
-->

Yes. It would be useful if we could see which filter plugin affected Pod's scheduling results in metrics.

Issue: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/110643
It was lacking the way to see which filter plugin affected Pod's scheduling results in metrics
(https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/110643),
and we've got `plugin_evaluation_total`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not a lacking metric anymore. Let' move it to "How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?" question - as it actually helps with that.
Please also better describe this metric.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.


### Dependencies

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -558,6 +563,20 @@ This through this both in small and large cases, again with respect to the
[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
-->

###### Can enabling / using this feature result in resource exhaustion of some node resources (PIDs, sockets, inodes, etc.)?

<!--
Focus not just on happy cases, but primarily on more pathological cases
(e.g. probes taking a minute instead of milliseconds, failed pods consuming resources, etc.).
If any of the resources can be exhausted, how this is mitigated with the existing limits
(e.g. pods per node) or new limits added by this KEP?

Are there any tests that were run/should be run to understand performance characteristics better
and validate the declared limits?
-->

No.

### Troubleshooting

<!--
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -615,6 +634,9 @@ Major milestones might include:
- 2022-01-14: Initial KEP is merged.
- 2022-03-16: The implementation PRs are merged.
- 2022-05-03: The MinDomain feature is released as alpha feature with Kubernetes v1.24 release.
- 2022-06-23: KEP is updated so that the MinDomain feature is moving to beta with Kubernetes v1.25 release.
- 2022-07-16: The feature gate is changed to be enabled by default.
- 2024-01-15: KEP is updated so that the MinDomain feature is moving to GA with Kubernetes v1.30 release.

## Drawbacks

Expand Down
7 changes: 4 additions & 3 deletions keps/sig-scheduling/3022-min-domains-in-pod-topology-spread/kep.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -14,12 +14,13 @@ reviewers:
approvers:
- "@alculquicondor"
- "@Huang-Wei"
stage: beta
latest-milestone: "v1.25"
stage: stable
latest-milestone: "v1.30"
milestone:
alpha: "v1.24"
beta: "v1.25"
disable-supported: true
stable: "v1.30"
disable-supported: false
feature-gates:
- name: MinDomainsInPodTopologySpread
components:
Expand Down